https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425614 Territorial jurisdiction in a cheque-dishonour prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act depended on where the cheque was presented and dishonoured. Because the cheque was presented through the payee's banker at Vishakhapatnam and returned unpaid there, that forum was treated as having jurisdiction under Section 142(2). The fact that the underlying transactions took place in Odisha did not, by itself, defeat maintainability. The earlier authority cited by the petitioner was distinguished on its facts, as it involved a complaint filed in a forum wholly unconnected with presentation and dishonour. The complaint was therefore maintainable and no ground was made out to quash the proceeding under Section 482 CrPC. en-us Tue, 19 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Jul 2022 09:08:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425614 Territorial jurisdiction in a cheque-dishonour prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act depended on where the cheque was presented and dishonoured. Because the cheque was presented through the payee's banker at Vishakhapatnam and returned unpaid there, that forum was treated as having jurisdiction under Section 142(2). The fact that the underlying transactions took place in Odisha did not, by itself, defeat maintainability. The earlier authority cited by the petitioner was distinguished on its facts, as it involved a complaint filed in a forum wholly unconnected with presentation and dishonour. The complaint was therefore maintainable and no ground was made out to quash the proceeding under Section 482 CrPC. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425614